I am not saying you guys are wrong; just adding another element for consideration. Our normal thought processes lead us to initially think to ourselves that it took “X” number of rounds to incapacitate someone in a situation like this. I.E., the last round was the one that “worked.” With the exception of certain limited and hard-to-achieve shot placements, or a shot that immediately disables a limb, incapacitation is often not immediate, based on my experience and training. People can continue to be functioning and aggressive for quite some time after suffering significant wounds that will eventually incapacitate or kill after sufficient blood loss, or other factors. And, when a bullet wound does immediately incapacitate, it may be as much a psychological reaction to being shot as a physiological one. I have seen people fall down and act like they are dying with “minor” GSW, and others keep fighting with catastrophic injuries. When bad guy fell in this incident, it could have been from the first round, or the second, or the last, or the cumulative effect of all them...I have no details as to where those rounds ended up or what kind of ammunition was involved, etc.
In other words, in this situation, the aggressor might have stopped his aggression just as soon had he only been shot once or twice and the subsequent shots may have made no real difference to the timeline. If so, then gun capacity and caliber are not significant. I am not saying that is the case, of course, and in a defensive situation, more ammo and better ammo is a good thing, but there are many factors that go into the incapacitation issue.
Besides, from his movements and facial expression, I am fairly sure the bad guy was a zombie, and they are harder to incapacitate, or so I am told.
Originally Posted by
the Schwartz
I cannot tell you how many times my thoughts have run the same route as yours, Paul.
Whenever I even get close to thinking about trading what little terminal ballistic performance offered by a full-size pistol there really is in any given ''full-power'' service caliber for the ''convenience'' of a more compact pistol (3'' - 3½'' barrel) in a lesser caliber, videos like the one seen in the OP make me reconsider the reduction of performance (both terminally and ergonomically) that just might make a difference in how things will end on the unfortunate day that I am forced by the actions of another to act in my own/loved ones' defense. Going to a cartridge that offers even less performance—like a .380—makes even less sense to me when considering changing those parameters.
My ''plain-jane'' stock (except for some Heinie target sights) Glock 17 lays flat enough not to 'print' in (I carry 3 o'clock OWB 99% of the time) and the additional 1'' - 1½'' barrel length (which is really an asset) isn't much of an issue to conceal with the right cover garment even in the summer.